Cyprus Mail , Cyprus
Sept 20 2009
The status quo suits everyone just fine
By Phedon Nicolaides
LAST WEEK, the Independent Commission on Turkey published its second
report on the progress of that country towards becoming a member of
the European Union. The report was also presented at a public meeting
organised by the prestigious European Policy Centre in Brussels.
The Independent Commission includes prominent European political
personalities such as Martti Ahtisaari, former President of Finland,
Michel Rocard, former Prime Minister of France, Hans van den Broek,
former Foreign Minister of the Netherlands and European Commissioner,
and Emma Bonino, former European Commissioner and current
Vice-President of the Italian Senate.
Their views carry weight and reflect many years of experience in
national and European politics. They cannot be easily dismissed.
So, the question is whether the report from such eminent persons says
anything new?
Predictably, it goes over the typical issues that have been for long
dogging Turkey’s candidacy for EU membership: the boundaries of
Europe, the European credentials of Turkey, its Islamic character, its
level of development and its economy, the treatment of Kurds,
relations with Armenia and Greece and, of course, the Cyprus problem.
On the latter, the Independent Commission believes that the current
talks between Messrs Christofias and Talat represent a last chance
that should not be missed. To be precise, the report says `¦ the
chance ¦ will certainly not come again in this political
generation.’
While the term `political generation’ is pretty vague, it is not clear
why it thinks that there will not be another opportunity.
The report alludes at different points to Turkey being increasingly
disillusioned, the European public opinion becoming less favourable to
Turkey’s entry into the EU, the missed economic opportunities from
normalised relations among all parties concerned and the need of the
EU to secure access to energy sources via Turkey. Although these are
good reasons why one should pursue vigorously settlement of the Cyprus
problem, they do not prove that this is the last chance.
The report of the Independent Commission is carefully and
diplomatically drafted but there is no doubt that it is critical of
the Republic of Cyprus, i.e. Greek Cypriots, for obstructing Turkey’s
accession negotiations and for perpetuating the isolation of the
Turkish Cypriots. The report is also more generally critical of the EU
itself, without naming individual member states, for letting Cyprus in
the EU with an unresolved problem.
These views are not new. They have been circulating in Brussels and
other European capitals for years. But there is a statement that is
fairly new and which should have been elaborated and explained in more
detail by the Independent Commission. The report urges EU leaders to
`challenge the apparent view in both Cypriot communities that the
status quo is sustainable indefinitely …’. It goes on to warn that
`¦ the partition of Cyprus will be extremely divisive for the EU.’
Whenever a report becomes alarmist, logic usually suffers. Here too
the logic of the report becomes rather sloppy. Partition that is
agreed or tolerated by the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities
should not necessarily divide EU leadership. Even enforced partition
need not precipitate extreme division in Europe. Now there is a de
facto partition that is enforced by the might of the Turkish army. It
does not seem to cause more than nuisance to the rest of Europe.
More importantly, if the status quo is unsustainable then something
else must necessarily replace it ` either a settlement or a complete
and irrevocable partition. The former is supposedly the outcome that
everybody wishes to achieve.
There may be many different versions and conceptions of such a
settlement but formally and publicly this is everybody’s aim. That
raises the question under which conditions can the latter outcome of
irrevocable partition happen.
It seems to me that in theory there are only two possibilities: either
one or both sides declare union with their respective motherlands or
one or both sides declare complete independence from each other with
no intention to maintain any kind of bilateral relationship. Even such
extreme outcomes don’t seem capable to lead to extreme division within
the EU.
The real problem in Cyprus is not that the status quo is
unsustainable. On the contrary, it is that it is virtually impossible
to move away from it. This problem exists in both communities. Public
opinion has been polarised by political rhetoric. No mainstream
politician openly admits that any settlement will require painful
compromises. This is the nature of negotiations. Yet, my impression is
that Cypriots seem to believe that the maximalist positions publicly
advocated by political leaders are somehow tenable and
achievable. This is a myth, but no one wants to acknowledge it, let
alone challenge it.
If you ask most Greek Cypriots the simple question whether they would
agree to concessions from those maximalist aims or maintain the status
quo, I think that most would prefer the status quo. It seems less
damaging and always leaves the possibility that some day things will
be better.
In this respect, the report of the Independent Commission is probably
wrong. The status quo can be sustained for a long time.
n Phedon Nicolaides Professor, European Institute of Public
Administration, Maastricht, The Netherlands
php?id=47925&cat_id=1